>> And while the Event ontology doesn't state event:Factor and >> geo:SpatialThing to be distinct (maybe they didn't want to make such >> statements about other people's terms - with OWL 2 they could do this for >> event:factor and event:place now though) I think it's pretty obvious that >> you're supposed to use event:place for the city in which the performance >> took place (or more exactly for the venue which is in the city). > > Ah, if only such things were obvious. No, it is not obvious that event:place > means the city. or even that one person's place might not be another > person's factor. And BTW, your mention of venue raises an interesting > question: can one event be in several event:places? For example, if the > recording was made in a studio in Los Angeles, would it be acceptable to > have the event:place be USA? Or would that simply be wrong? The point being, > of course, that shouldn't the ontology specification say **something** about > issues like this? Questions like this matter when one wants to retrieve data > based on conditions (find all the recordings that were made anywhere in the > USA before 1997.)
Interesting point. Although the event ontology defers it to the Geonames ontology and its "feature" concept. y